WI: Successful Kapp Putsch crushed by France

If they take the West Bank of the Rhine, they'll be out of it within a year; they tried the same tactic in 1923 to force compliance on reparations but it proved untenable even in the face of just civilian resistance.
Unless I'm missing something else (which as usual I may very well be) wasn't the French occupation of the Ruhr stopped because it was unprofitable and US/UK started financially pressuring France to leave? In the case of France responding to a militarist putsch I'd imagine this pressure would be significantly lighter. I don't think the occupation was actually ever militarily untenable, and in this case we're presumably getting some sort of PoD that makes France reasonably determined to get the Rhine.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
International pressures caused the French to back out of the Ruhr occupation, but apparently, the French were able to stop the flow of strike support funds to striking workers in the Ruhr and Rhineland, and that was enough to get them back to work, and producing in factories from which the French were taking a cut at the end of the occupation.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I agree with Schwamberger largely - to summarize - a Kapp Putsch Germany is showing its recidivism way too soon and way too brazenly to get the sympathy of Britain and the US against French countermeasures.
 
Yep, but then what? British starved Boers, Turkey massacred Armenians, Japan do the same with Chinese and Russians invented Pogroms but alliances were made and keep without any problem. US and UK are not going to declare war to France for that. They could protest, sure. They could also break the Anglo-French Alliance but with Soviets moving quickly toward Central Europe France, with its fundamental assistance to Poland and its troops in Germany, is the only nation that could stop them. They could use war debts to put pressure on French Goverment but if they put too much and break France could decide to not paying nothing anymore, a move that could lead to US banking collapse. Maybe US could decide to reduce German debts (but they can't really eliminate them if they don't want pay debts for themselves) and put higher interest on French debts but France could sell French Indochina, as they proposed IOTL. France could use "They break Versailles, they had a radical militar dictatorship that was going to attack us for revenge, it was necessary to assure Europe a durable peace" excuse and many will be ready to believe it. After France retires from Germany and some radical goverment take power here, many will think "Thank God they have not weapons" and France "Not God, thank me".

Not to be cynical, but the difference is that the Germans are Europeans, and Christian, and this genocide is happening here in people's backdoor and not halfway across the world. There will be a response and I doubt France will particularly like becoming the international pariah. Absolutely no one will buy the "Durable Peace" excuse, and England has never looked fondly upon anyone who looks like they'll be becoming the next continental hegemon, like say, a France with control of the Ruhr and allies in Belgium and Poland could make a reasonable claim to be.
 
Unless I'm missing something else (which as usual I may very well be) wasn't the French occupation of the Ruhr stopped because it was unprofitable and US/UK started financially pressuring France to leave? In the case of France responding to a militarist putsch I'd imagine this pressure would be significantly lighter. I don't think the occupation was actually ever militarily untenable, and in this case we're presumably getting some sort of PoD that makes France reasonably determined to get the Rhine.

Both, and that was in the context of not having to fight a conventional conflict against a more powerful opponent that Germany even in 1920 was with regards to France. If actually having to fight the Reichswehr, the financial drain and the political will to fight an aggressive war simply isn't there.
 
...this does not look good for anyone. The economic disruption means food supply problems again even without a new blockade of Germany. Financial concerns everywhere. No one wins this one.
 
Germany refusing the ToV is going to burn a lot of bridges with Britain and the US. France is going to insist on occupying the Rhinlenad, meanwhile Poland will be pressing harder for eg Silesia and Masuria.

It'd be a mess, and I could easily see multiple revolutions emerging out of it.
 
I’m thinking about this from the perspective of internal French politics, and that end looks unfavorable to the OP’s hard line approach as well. The President was losing his mind, there was a general strike in May that the PM insisted on cracking down on despite reservations from his cabinet, and IOTL there was a debate on reducing service lengths during this period. Those plans would be shelved in the event of war starting up again, but the point is that the situation was fragile, and you’d need far more confidence in your domestic political position to attempt something so costly and controversial. Would Millerand bet he could occupy the West Bank indefinitely, entirely abandon his former allies in the Radical Party as they’d face pressure from the SFIO over this permanent war footing, and still be seen as an acceptable compromise choice for President after Deschanel left in September?

The Morganthau thing is right out. That’d provoke guerrilla resistance in Germany and another general strike in France sooner or later.
 

Deleted member 94680

For all the claims that Britain would be favourable to French aggressive action, when in the same period OTL did the British look like they wanted to get involved in continental action? Presuming an OTL WWI, Britain is suffering financially, has begun fighting the Irish War of Independence and even two years later (ie further on from the problems of recovering from the War) shows via the Chanak Crisis there is no appetite for foreign intervention.
 
Both, and that was in the context of not having to fight a conventional conflict against a more powerful opponent that Germany even in 1920 was with regards to France. If actually having to fight the Reichswehr, the financial drain and the political will to fight an aggressive war simply isn't there.
I read Wikipedia a bit more and apparently the French occupation of the Rhine was actually quite profitable:

"According to Sally Marks, the occupation of the Ruhr 'was profitable and caused neither the German hyperinflation, which began in 1922 and ballooned because of German responses to the Ruhr occupation, nor the franc's 1924 collapse, which arose from French financial practices and the evaporation of reparations'. Marks suggests the profits, after Ruhr-Rhineland occupation costs, were nearly 900 million gold marks."

If this is true then I think it's mostly down to whether or not France has the political will to do so. Which is questionable, but I'm sure there's some PoD that could lead to such will being present.

Unrelated to that, the assertion that a French-backed Rhenish Republic would become a European Vietnam seems questionable to me. It's not like Germany was in a particularly good position at this point either, so as long as France lets the Rhine stay relatively economically and politically independent I don't see where the political will to destroy developed, well-off European cities just to get the French out comes from. As per usual I might just be totally wrong though.

For all the claims that Britain would be favourable to French aggressive action, when in the same period OTL did the British look like they wanted to get involved in continental action? Presuming an OTL WWI, Britain is suffering financially, has begun fighting the Irish War of Independence and even two years later (ie further on from the problems of recovering from the War) shows via the Chanak Crisis there is no appetite for foreign intervention.
I don't think anyone actually suggested that the UK would openly back France in such a conflict, just that they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent France from doing whatever it does in such a conflict.
 
I read Wikipedia a bit more and apparently the French occupation of the Rhine was actually quite profitable:

"According to Sally Marks, the occupation of the Ruhr 'was profitable and caused neither the German hyperinflation, which began in 1922 and ballooned because of German responses to the Ruhr occupation, nor the franc's 1924 collapse, which arose from French financial practices and the evaporation of reparations'. Marks suggests the profits, after Ruhr-Rhineland occupation costs, were nearly 900 million gold marks."

If this is true then I think it's mostly down to whether or not France has the political will to do so. Which is questionable, but I'm sure there's some PoD that could lead to such will being present.

Unrelated to that, the assertion that a French-backed Rhenish Republic would become a European Vietnam seems questionable to me. It's not like Germany was in a particularly good position at this point either, so as long as France lets the Rhine stay relatively economically and politically independent I don't see where the political will to destroy developed, well-off European cities just to get the French out comes from. As per usual I might just be totally wrong though.

If the occupation was so profitable, than clearly the matter was one of political will. This was in the context of the German government not offering resistance via the Reichswehr; here, they would be doing so.
 
If the occupation was so profitable, than clearly the matter was one of political will. This was in the context of the German government not offering resistance via the Reichswehr; here, they would be doing so.

I'm getting all my info from Wikipedia so if you have a better source feel free to laugh at me, but again from the article on the Occupation of the Ruhr:

"Though the French succeeded in making their occupation of the Ruhr pay, the Germans through their passive resistance in the Ruhr and the hyperinflation that wrecked their economy, won the world's sympathy, and under heavy Anglo-American financial pressure (the simultaneous decline in the value of the franc made the French very open to pressure from Wall Street and the City), the French were forced to agree to the Dawes Plan of April 1924, which substantially lowered German reparations payments."

which seems to suggest the French pulling out of the Ruhr was primarily caused by "heavy Anglo-American financial pressure." Which as mentioned before in this case probably would not exist, since though the US/UK wouldn't exactly condone France seizing the Rhine, there wouldn't be much sympathy for a militarist Germany that's violated Versailles within a year of it being signed.
 
Let's say that the Kapp putsch or some similar military overthrow of the Weimar regime in 1920 was successful, and the new military regime repudiates the Treaty of Versailles and refuses to pay reparations or abide by the disarmament clauses. The new regime thinks they can do for Germany what Ataturk is doing for Turkey, but their attempt instead results in a Franco-Belgian invasion of Germany that sees the French and Belgiums in Berlin by the end of 1921.

I think this discussion has skipped over an interesting part of this divergence, namely, how did the putsch succeed? It's hard to just butterfly away a twelve million man general strike.
 

Deleted member 94680

I don't think anyone actually suggested that the UK would openly back France in such a conflict, just that they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent France from doing whatever it does in such a conflict.

...seems to suggest the French pulling out of the Ruhr was primarily caused by "heavy Anglo-American financial pressure." Which as mentioned before in this case probably would not exist, since though the US/UK wouldn't exactly condone France seizing the Rhine

I contend that the British would act similarly as OTL. It’s not in Britain’s interests to see France ride to European ascendency on the back of destroying Germany, Reichswehr coup or no.
 

longsword14

Banned
The OP has several flaws.
1. Any leader who tried to separate Bavaria from Germany would find his political tenure and life cut drastically short.

2. The French occupied as much of the Rhineland as they could get away with. Unless the US and UK are openly supporting France, which they did not in OTL, then the blowback would force France to climb down just as in OTL.

3. An all out occupation of Germany was not on the cards.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The OP has several flaws.
1. Any leader who tried to separate Bavaria from Germany would find his political tenure and life cut drastically short.
Not so sure about that. If France manages to wreck Germany to an extent that would make General Sherman proud, Bavarians might be happy to not be a part of the broken Germany that remains.

2. The French occupied as much of the Rhineland as they could get away with. Unless the US and UK are openly supporting France, which they did not in OTL, then the blowback would force France to climb down just as in OTL.
Germany has brazenly provoked French intervention. Passive support of France by the US and UK is implied.

3. An all out occupation of Germany was not on the cards.
Did you read the OP? Nowhere was a permanent full occupation suggested.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I think it would be helpful to look at the situation 105 years earlier. After decades of on-and-off total war, the already-exhausted Great Powers immediately united to drive Napoleon off his throne one last time before he had even finished taking control of France. Napoleon hadn't even done anything to provoke them besides being Napoleon. In this case, militarists have not only taken control of Germany but completely repudiated the ToV. They've made it perfectly clear that they are preparing for Round 2. The French public might be exhausted, but they'll understand that they either fight the Germans now, or fight them on Germany's terms in a few years once Germany is done preparing. The Belgians would be ready to fight alongside France. At this point no politician in the US or UK will support the Germans - it's less than two years after the end of the war, and they can't support Germany's flagrant violation of the ToV. So the question is not would France try to crush Germany, but if they could crush Germany, and how badly would they punish Germany if they succeeded.
 
Top